Bap 


# 

.^ 

/^ 

;^ 

1£ 

,  •^ 

Q- 

^ 

0) 
t3 

«J 

^  ^ 

m 

.e    ^ 

a. 

#    ^ 

o 

4^^ 

$ 

J   § 

CD 

C 

bfl 
< 

m     U 



CD 

^' 

o 

3 

^                M 

E 

-&  - 

^ 
S 

>% 

1 

^ 

•^ 

^ 

-o 

■^i 

% 

0) 

§ 

^, 

0) 

;:> 

V^ 

cii 

1 

C  .     ' 


ESSAY 


ON  BAPTISM; 


SHEWING  THAT 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE  SPIRIT, 


AND 


NOT  WITH  WATER, 


IS    THE 


TRUE  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


BY  ENOCH 


SLEWIS. 


"  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you  through  philosophy  and  vain 
deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world, 
and  not  after  Christ."— CoZos.  ii.  8. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

URIAH  HUNT— 101  MARKET  STREET. 

NATHAN  KITE— APPLETREE  ALLEY,  NEAR 

FOURTH  STREET. 


1839. 


ON  1^\>%%^ 

BAPTISM.    X-O    ^> 


The  subject  of  baptism  has,  of  latter  time, 
excited  an  unusual  share  of  attention  among  the 
professors  of  the  Christian  name.  The  Society 
of  Friends,  by  the  rejection  of  water  baptism, 
are  generally  supposed  to  have  insulated  them- 
selves from  nearly  the  whole  Christian  world. 
So  momentous  indeed  does  this  rejection  appear 
in  the  view  of  many  Christian  professors,  that 
they  are  ready  to  unchristianize  the  society  on 
that  account  They  can  scarcely  suppose  that 
a  community  who  disregard  what  they  consider 
go  obvious  an  ordinance,  as  that  of  baptism  by 
water,  can  believe  in  the  truth  and  importance 
of  the  holy  scriptures.  A  little  attention,  how- 
ever, to  the  subject  will  evince,  that  Friends 
have  been  adjudged  to  deny  the  holy  scriptures, 
because  they  give  to  some  portions  of  the  sacred 
volume,  a  different  construction  from  that  which 
some  other  professors  adopt.     To  be  condemned 


ESSAY  ON 


on  that  principle,  is  not  new.  The  Pharisees 
condemned  the  Saviour  himself  by  a  similar 
argument.  "  We  know  that  this  man  is  not  of 
God,  because  he  keepeth  not  the  Sabbath."  (John 
ix.  16.)  They  believed  that  God  spake  to 
Moses,  and  hence  they  fairly  inferred  that  his 
injunctions  were  obligatory  on  them.  But  our 
Saviour  did  not  obey  those  injunctions  accord- 
ing to  the  sense  which  they  gave  them.  If  the 
argument  was  unsound  then,  an  argument 
founded  on  correspondent  principles  cannot  be 
conclusive  now.  And  before  we  admit  that  the 
practice  of  Friends,  in  relation  to  water  bap- 
tism, furnishes  any  ground  for  a  charge  of 
denying  or  undervaluing  the  scriptures,  it  may 
be  well  to  inquire,  soberly  and  carefully,  whether 
the  opinion  that  water  baptism  constitutes  an 
essential  part  of  the  Christian  system,  is  in  reahty 
a  scripture  doctrine. 

In  the  first  place  it  may  be  observed,  that  the 
practice  of  immersion,  or  bathing  in  water,  was 
a  Jewish  ceremony.  Moses,  on  several  occa- 
sions, enjoined  the  people  to  wash  their  clothes, 
and  bathe  their  flesh  in  water.  Thus  in  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus,  a  number  of  cases 
are  mentioned,  in  which  the  people  were  re- 
quired to  wash  their  clothes  and  bathe  them- 
selves in  water.  And,  chap.  16,  it  is  prescribed 
that  the  man  who  let  the  scape-goat  go  into 
the  wilderness,  and  he  that  burned  the  skins  and 


BAPTISM.  5 

flesh  of  the  sin-offering,  should  wash  their  clothes, 
and  bath  their  flesh  in  water,  before  they  came 
into  the  camp.  Again,  he  that  eateth  that 
which  dieth  of  itself,  or  is  torn  of  beasts,  shall 
wash  his  clothes  and  bathe  himself  in  water. 
But  if  he  wash  them  not,  nor  bathe  his  flesh,  he 
shall  bear  his  iniquity.  Also  when  the  water  of 
separation  was  about  to  be  prepared,  the  priest, 
having  performed  his  part  of  the  process,  was 
to  wash  his  clothes  and  bathe  his  flesh  in  water. 
He  also  that  burned  the  heifer,  was  required  to 
wash  his  clothes  and  bathe  his  flesh  in  water. 
(Numb.  xix.  7, 8.)  To  the  w^ashings  required  by 
the  precepts  of  Moses,  others  were  added  by 
the  Rabbins,  and  afterwards  observed  as  tradi- 
tions of  the  elders.  (Mark  vii.  4,  5.)  Now  it 
is  remarkable,  that  the  Apostle  to  the  Hebrews, 
referring  to  these  divers  washings,  which  were 
observed  under  the  law,  calls  them  baptisms, 
fixirriG-fAot.  (Heb.  ix.  10.)  And  the  evangelists 
Mark  and  Luke,  speaking  of  the  washings  re- 
quired by  their  traditions,  use  corresponding 
words. 

As  the  word  baptize,  in  the  Greek  /3««7rr/|» 
signifies  to  dip  or  immerse,  it  is  not  strange  that 
we  should  frequently  meet  with  this  word  when 
reference  is  made  to  a  practice  which  was  so 
prevalent  among  the  Jews.  But  the  word  not 
occurring  in  our  translation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  hasty  and  superficial  reader,  is  apt  to 
1* 


ESSAY  oisr 


suppose,  when  he  finds  it  in  the  beginning  of  the 
New,  that  the  practice  to  which  it  appHes,  was 
then  first  introduced.  This,  however,  we  per- 
ceive, was  not  the  case.  But  the  Jewish  prac- 
tice of  immersion,  to  which  the  baptism  of  John 
bears  a  remarkable  analogy,  was  the  dip'ping 
on  conversion.  And  that  practice  itself  was 
evidently  borrowed  from  the  law  of  Moses. 
When  the  law  was  about  to  be  given  to  the 
Israelites,  Moses  was  commanded  to  sanctify 
the  people  on  that  day  and  the  next,  and  let 
them  wash  their  clothes,  and  be  ready  against 
the  third  day,  to  behold  the  manifestations  of 
Almighty  }.iower,  by  which  the  law  was  intro- 
duced. Moses  accordingly  went  down  to  the 
people  and  sanctified  them,  and  they  washed 
their  clothes.  (Exodus,  xix.  14.)  Although  the 
clothes  only  are  mentioned  in  this  place,  yet  in 
other  places,  when,  on  loss  solemn  occasions, 
they  were  directed  to  wash  their  clothes,  they 
were  commanded  to  bathe  themselves  also  in 
water ;  hence  it  is  probable  that  this  Avashing 
was  applied  to  their  persons,  as  well  as  their 
clothes.  Such  is,  at  least,  the  traditional  con- 
struction put  upon  this  passage  by  the  Rabbini- 
cal writers.  They  further  assert  that  this  was 
a  baptism  of  conversion  ;  because  the  people 
were  then  to  be  subjected  to  a  better  and  purer 
law  than  they  had  previously  acknowledged. 
Hence,  according  to  the  Jewish  writers, arose 


BAPTISM.  7 

the  baptism  of  proselytes,  or  of  those  Gentiles 
who  were  converted  to  the  Jewish  rehgion.  In 
their  account  of  the  process,  Maimonides  and 
other  Rabbinical  writers  state,  that  after  diligent 
inquiry  respecting  the  motive  of  the  applicant, 
they  tested  his  sincerity  by  impressing  upon  him 
the  strictness  and  severity  of  their  law;  and 
when  satisfied  of  the  purity  of  his  intentions, 
they  placed  him  in  a  confluence  of  waters,  again 
instructed  him  in  the  provisions  of  the  law,  and 
after  complete  immersion  and  the  offering  of  his 
sacrifice,  he  became  as  a  natural  Jew,  or  regene- 
rated person."'*' 

This  practice  is  stated  by  the  Jewish  writers 
to  have  existed  long  before  the  Christian  era  ; 
and  even  to  have  been  in  use  through  the  dif- 
ferent ages,  from  the  time  of  Moses.  There  is 
indeed  so  striking  a  resemblance  between  the 
Jewish  baptism  of  conversion,  and  that  used  by 
John,  and  after  him  by  the  early  Christians,  that, 
if  we  even  reject  entirely  the  testimony  of  the 
Jewish  authors  in  regard  to  the  antiquity  of  the 
practice,  we  cannot  doubt  but  that  it  was  one 
and  the  same  rite,  which  was  performed  by  them 
all.  It  is  true  that  the  existence  of  proselyte 
baptism  prior  to  the  Christian  era,  has  been  dis- 
puted by  some  of  the  learned.  The  denial 
however  is  founded  upon  negative  evidence,  the 

*  Wall  on  the  history  of  Infant  Baptism,  page  xliii.  &c. 


8  ESSAY  ON 

silence  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  ancient 
uninspired  writers  among  the  Jews;  but  the 
affirmative  of  the  question  rests  on  the  positive 
testimony  of  several  Jewish  authors  of  later 
date,  and  particularly  on  that  of  Maimonides,  a 
man  of  extraordinary  understanding  and  learn- 
ing. There  is  nothing  strange  or  incredible  in 
the  supposition  that  the  forerunner  of  our  Lord 
should  be  divinely  required  to  accompany  his 
ministry  by  an  exterior  observance,  which  was 
already  familiar  to  the  people  to  whom  he  was 
sent.  But  that  he  should  be  commanded  to 
introduce  a  new  ceremony  at  the  time  when  the 
Messiah,  in  whom  the  types  and  ceremonies  of 
the  former  dispensation  were  to  end,  was  about 
to  appear,  is  highly  improbable.  It  is  also 
incredible  that  the  Jews  should  copy  their  bap- 
tism of  conversion  from  John,  or  the  early 
Christians.  Their  rejection  of  our  Saviour  and 
hatred  of  Christianity  would  present  an  insu- 
perable barrier  to  such  imitation. 

When  the  time  approached  in  which  the  types 
and  shadows  of  the  law,  and  the  predictions  of 
the  prophets,  were  to  receive  their  fulfilment, 
the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  John  the  son  of 
Zacharias,  in  the  wilderness,  and  he  came  into 
all  the  country  about  Jordan  preaching  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
(Luke  iii.  2,  3.)  There  was  in  this  ceremony, 
something  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  ministry 


BAPTISM.  9 

of  John.  As  the  bathins^  in  water  had  lono^  been 
in  use  among  the  Jews,  as  a  means  of"  purifica- 
tion from  legal  pollutions,  it  was  to  them,  very- 
expressive  of  the  repentance, and  amendment  of 
life,  which  it  was  his  mission  to  proclaim.  Being 
also,  among  the  Jews,  an  appendage  to  conver- 
sion from  heathenism  to  the  Jewish  religion,  it 
was  well  suited  to  indicate  the  conv^ersion  from 
the  religion  of  Moses,  to  the  purer  and  more 
spiritual  religion,  to  which  John's  ministry  was 
an  introduction. 

The  previous  useof  this,  or  a  similar  baptism, 
as  an  indication  of  conversion  to  a  better  faith, 
explains  the  surprise  expressed  by  the  Pharisees, 
when  they  learned  that  John  w^as  not  the  Christ, 
nor  Elias,  nor  that  prophet.  Why  baptizest 
thou  then,  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ,  nor  Elias, 
neither  that  prophet?  (John  i.  25.)  Now  al- 
though he  was  sent  to  baptize  with  water,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  administration  of  that  ceremony 
w^as  not  the  primary  object  of  his  mission.  He 
preached  the  doctrine  of  repentance.  He  ex- 
horted the  people  to  repent,  for  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  was  at  hand.  He  taught  them  to  expect 
the  promised  Messiah,  as  then  about  to  appear. 
(Matt.  iii.  2.  Mark  i.  3.)  He  explained  the 
baptism  which  he  administered  as  prefigurative 
only  of  that  more  effectual  baptism  which  Christ 
himself  should  introduce.  (Matt.  iii.  11.  Luke 
iii.  16,  17.) 


10  ESSAY  ON 

That  the  promulgation  of  the  doctrines  which 
John  taught,  not  the  baptizing  of  the  people  in 
water,  was  the  great  object  of  iiis  mission,  is 
sufficiently  manifest  from  several  passages  in 
the  New  Testament,  When  the  ansjel  announ- 
ced  his  birth  to  his  father  Zacharias,  he  informed 
him  what  his  character  and  office  should  be. 
He  shall  be  great  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord.  And 
many  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to 
the  Lord  their  God.  And  he  shall  go  before 
him  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  to  turn  the 
hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  dis- 
obedient to  the  wisdom  of  the  just;  to  make 
ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord.  (Luke 
i.  15 — 17.)  Zacharias  himself  also  declared  of 
this  son,  that  he  should  be  called  the  prophet  of 
the  Highest,  for  he  should  go  before  the  face  of 
the  Lord  to  prepare  his  ways.  To  give  know- 
ledge of  salvation  unto  his  people  by  the  remis- 
sion of  their  sins.     (Luke  i.  70,  77.) 

Here  we  have  the  great  object  of  his  mission 
clearly  explained  ;  but  nothing  is  mentioned  of 
the  ceremony  which  accompanied  it.  After- 
wards we  find  him  apparently  fearful  that  the 
people  who  submitted  to  his  baptism  might  be 
disposed  to  look  with  too  much  regard  upon  this 
ceremony,  and  too  little  upon  the  object  of  it. 
"  When  he  saw  many  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees  conie  to  his  baptism,  he  said  unto  them, 
O  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you 


BAPTISM.  11 

to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ?  Bring  forth 
therefore  fruits  meet  for  repentance  ;  and  think 
not  to  say  within  yourselves,  we  have  Abraham 
to  our  father,  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God  is 
able,  of  these  stones,  to  raise  up  children  unto 
Abraham.  And  now  also  the  axe  is  laid  to  the 
root  of  the  trees  ;  every  tree,  therefore,  which 
bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit,  is  hewn  down  and 
cast  into  the  fire:  I  indeed  baptize  you  with 
water  unto  repentance,  but  he  that  cometh  after 
me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not 
worthy  to  bear,  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire ;  whose  fan  is  in  his 
hand,  and  he  will  thoroughly  purge  his  floor, 
and  gather  his  wheat  into  the  garner;  but  he 
will  burn  up  the  chaff*  with  unquenchable  fire." 
(Matt.  iii.  7 — 12.)  This  is  further  illustrated 
by  a  circumstance  in  the  history  of  our  Saviour 
mentioned  by  three  of  the  evangelists.  (Matt. 
xxi.  23.  Mark  xi.  27.  Luke  xx.  1.)  When 
the  priests  and  elders  inquired  by  what  authority 
he  did  those  things,  and  who  gave  him  that 
authority,  he  told  them  that  in  case  they 
would  answer  a  question  which  he  was  about 
to  propound,  he  would  tell  them  by  what 
authority  he  did  those  things.  He  then  in- 
quired of  them  whether  the  baptism  of  John 
was  from  Heaven,  or  of  men.  They  evidently 
understood  this  question  to  relate  to  the  testi- 
mony of  John  concerning  Christ,  and  not  to  his 


12  ESSAY  ON 

baptism  only;  for  they  concluded  that  if  they 
should  acknowledge  its  divine  origin,  he  would 
say,  why  then  did  ye  not  believe  him?  The 
question  itself,  we  may  observe,  when  thus 
understood,  if  candidly  answered,  would  have 
led  to  a  solution  of  the  difficulty  which  the  priests 
and  elders  appeared  desirous  of  having  solved. 
For  John  had  borne  record  of  him  and  his  mis- 
sion ;  had  taught  the  people  whence  he  came 
and  what  was  the  authority  by  which  he  acted. 
(John  i.  15—17,  29—34.)  The  testimony  of 
John,  not  his  baptism  merely,  showed  the 
character  and  authority  of  Christ.  Hence  we 
see  why  the  duplicity  of  the  priests  and  elders 
deprived  them  of  an  answer  to  their  question. 

As  the  legal  dispensation  was  designed  to 
prepare  the  people  for  the  more  glorious  one 
which  was  to  follow,  and  to  lead  them  to  Christ, 
John,  the  immediate  forerunner  of  the  Messiah, 
was  placed  at  the  head  of  that  dispensation. 
Christ  himself  testified  that  no  greater  prophet 
had  ever  arisen  than  John  the  Baptist,  (Luke 
vii.  28;)  and  that  he  was  a  burning  and  a  shining 
light.  (John  V.  35.)  The  evangelist  declares 
that  he  came  for  a  witness  to  bear  witness  of 
the  light,  that  all  men  through  him  (or  it)  might 
believe.  (John  i.  7.)  The  great  object  of  his 
ministry,  as  testified  by  himself,  was  that  Christ 
the  true  light,  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world,  might  be  manifested 


BAPTISM.  13 

to  Israel,  (i.  31.)  Hence  we  see  that  the 
baptism  which  he  administered,  though  an  ac- 
companiment, was  not  the  great  object  of  his 
ministry.  It  was  however  divinely  authorized, 
and  justly  held  a  conspicuous  place  in  his  mis- 
sion. But  it  may  be  observed,  that  this  cere- 
mony owed  its  importance  to  the  mission,  not 
the  mission  to  it.  It  is  also  proper  to  remember, 
that  the  ministry  of  John  belonged  rather  to  the 
dispensation  of  the  law  and  the  prophets  than  to 
that  of  Christ;  for  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  greater  than  John.  (Luke  vii.  28.) 
It  was  an  introduction  to,  not  a  part  of,  the 
Christian  dispensation.  It  is  observable  that 
John  attributed  to  himself  a  character  incom- 
parably inferior  to  that  of  his  Master;  and  to 
the  baptism  which  he  administered,  an  office 
and  permanence  totally  different  from  that  which 
was  to  follow.  "  I  indeed  baptize  with  water 
unto  repentance,  but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is 
mightier  than  I,  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.  He  must  increase, 
but  I  must  decrease."  (Matt.  iii.  1 1.  John  iii.  30.) 
Hence  it  is  obvious  that  the  baptism  with 
water,  as  administered  by  John,  was  not  a  part 
of  the  Christian  dispensation.  If  it  now  belongs 
to  that  dispensation,  it  must  do  so  because  it 
necessarily  promotes  the  general  object  of 
Christianity  ;  or  because  it  has  been  introduced 
into  the  Christian  system  by  divine  authority. 
2 


14  ESSAY  ON 

Now  it  certainly  will  not  be  asserted  that  the 
immersion  of  the  body  in  water,  or  any  other 
application  of  water,  has,  in  itself,  any  efficacy 
in  purging  the  sins  of  the  soul.  We  may  call  it 
an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and 
spiritual  grace ;  yet  the  sign,  we  must  all  admit, 
does  not  necessarily  confer  the  grace.  The 
visible  sign  may  be  where  the  spiritual  grace 
is  not  experienced.  And  surely  none  will  deny 
that  the  spiritual  grace  may  be  dispensed  with- 
out the  accompaniment  of  the  outward  and 
visible  sign.  We  are  therefore  thrown  upon 
the  latter  alternative.  Was  it  introduced  into 
the  Christian  system  by  divine  authority? 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  examination  of  this 
question,  a  few  observations  may  be  premised. 

First.  The  Christian  religion  was  not  de- 
signed to  be  a  system  of  ceremonies,  but  of 
permanent  and  universal  righteousness,  and  this 
effect  is  to  be  produced  by  purifying  the  heart, 
by  rectifying  the  springs  and  principles  of  action. 
This  is  clearly  set  forth  in  several  parts  of  the 
prophetic  writings.  In  the  first  annunciation 
of  the  Messiah,  it  was  declared  that  the  seed  of 
the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head. 
(Gen.  iii.  15.)  An  expressive  figure  indicating 
the  destruction  of  evil  in  its  course.  The  pro- 
mise to  Abraham,  that  in  him  and  in  his  seed 
all  nations  should  be  blessed,  (Ibid.  xii.  3,  and 
xxii,  18),  gives  an  elevated  character  of  the 


MAPTISM.  15 

Christian  dispensation,  to  which  it  unquestiona- 
bly alludes.  The  dechiration  of  the  prophet 
Isaiah  is  still  more  specific.  "  Unto  us  a  child 
is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given,  and  the  govern- 
ment shall  be  upon  his  shoulders,  and  his  name 
shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the 
Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father,  the  Prince 
of  Peace.  Of  the  increase  of  his  government 
and  peace  there  shall  be  no  end  ;  upon  the  throne 
of  David  and  upon  his  kingdom,  to  order  it, 
and  to  establish  it,  with  judgment  and  with  jus- 
tice, from  henceforth  even  for  ever."  (Isa.  ix. 
6,  7.)  "  And  there  shall  come  forth  a  rod  out  of 
the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  shall  grow^  out 
of  his  roots ;  and  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  shall 
rest  upon  him,  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  under- 
standing, the  spirit  of  counsel  and  might,  the 
spirit  of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  the  Lord  ; 
and  shall  make  him  of  quick  understanding  in 
the  fear  of  the  Lord ;  and  he  shall  not  judge 
after  the  sight  of  his  eyes,  neither  reprove  after 
the  hearing  of  his  ears.  Rut  with  righteousness 
shall  he  judge  the  poor,  and  reprove  with  equity 
for  the  meek  of  the  earth ;  and  he  shall  smite 
the  earth  with  the  rod  of  his  mouth,  and  loith 
the  breath  of  his  lips  shall  he  slay  Ike  wicked. 
And  righteousness  shall  be  the  girdle  of  his 
loins  and  faithfulness  the  girdle  of  his  reins. 
They  shall  not  hurt  nor  destroy  in  all  my  holy 
mountain ;    for  the  earth  shall  be  full  of  the 


16  ESSiVY  ON 

knowledge  of  the  Lord  as  the  waters  cover  the 
sea."  (Ibid.  xi.  1 — 5,  9.)  These  are  a  few  of 
the  sublime  predictions  of  the  evangelical 
prophet,  relative  to  the  peace,  righteousness  and 
perfection  of  the  gospel  day. 

The  prophet  Daniel  also  foretold  the  office, 
as  well  as  the  time,  of  the  promised  Messiah. 
"  Seventy  weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  peo- 
ple, and  upon  thy  holy  city,  to  finish  the  trans- 
gression, and  to  make  an  end  of  sins,  and  to 
make  reconciliation  for  iniquity,  and  to  bring 
in  everlasting  righteousness,  and  to  seal  up  the 
vision  and  prophecy,  and  to  anoint  the  most 
holy."     (Chap.  ix.  24.) 

In  the  angelic  communication  to  Joseph, 
■previous  to  the  birth  of  Christ,  it  was  foretold 
that  he  should  save  his  people  fro?n  their  sins. 
(Matt.  i.  21.)  In  the  admirable  synopsis  of 
Christian  morality,  contained  in  the  sermon  on 
the  Mount,  we  find  a  vital,  heart-felt  religion 
particularly  enjoined.  A  number  of  the  maxims 
of  the  law  are  recited,  but  followed  by  declara- 
tions which  show  that  the  righteousness  of  the 
law  was  to  be  merged,  not  destroyed,  in  the 
righteousness  of  the  gospel.  "  Think  not  that  I 
am  come  to  destroy  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
I  am  not  come  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil.  For 
verily  I  say  unto  you,  till  heaven  and  earth  pass, 
one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from 
the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled."     (Ibid.  v.  17,  18.) 


f^. 


BAPTISM.  ^      ^  *-     ^ 


As  all  the  types  and  shadows  d#^the  i^ 
pointed  to  our  Lord  and  his  dispensation,  as  their 
ultimate  object,  so  they  found  in  him  and  iii  his  ^ 
dispensation  their  complete  fulfilment.  In  his 
personal  character,  being  born  under  the  law, 
and  submitting  to  all  its  requisitions,  he  fulfilled 
in  himself  the  ceremonial  law.  And  when  on 
the  cross,  he  declared  it  was  finished ;  he  blotted 
out  the  hand  writing  of  the  legal  ordinances, 
naihng  them  to  his  cross.  From  thenceforth 
the  obligation  of  the  ceremonial  law,  with  its 
divers  washings,  was  at  an  end. 

But  the  righteousness  of  the  Mosaic  law  is 
fulfilled  in  the  superior  righteousness  of  the 
gospel  dispensation.  And  if  we  suppose  any  of 
the  legal  ceremonies  to  be  included  in  the 
righteousness  which  Christianity  effects,  we 
must  upon  the  same  principle  admit  them  all. 

Second.  Our  Saviour  frequently  gave  his  in- 
structions in  figurative  language ;  and  the  people 
to  whom  he  spoke  often  mistook  his  meaning,  by 
giving  a  literal  interpretation  to  his  words.  When 
he  admonished  his  disciples  to  beware  of  the 
lea  venofthe  Pharisees  and oftheSadducees,  they 
thought  he  was  rebuking  them  for  neglecting  to 
provide  a  proper  supply  of  bread.  (Matt.  xvi. 
6,  7.)  When  he  told  Nicodemus  that  except  a 
man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom 
of  God,  he  was  ready  to  suppose  the  attainment 
of  salvation  impossible,  on  this  condition.  (John 
2* 


18  ESSAY  OX 

iii.  4.)  When  he  informed  the  woman  at 
Jacob's  well,  that  whosoever  drank  of  the  water 
which  he  should  give  him,  should  never  thirst, 
but  it  should  be  in  him  a  well  of  water  springing 
up  into  everlasting  life,  she,  construing  his 
words  literally,  desired  him  to  give  her  that 
water,  that  she  might  not  thirst,  neither  go 
thither  to  draw.  When  he  told  the  Jews  they 
must  eat  his  flesh  and  drink  his  blood,  they  thought 
his  doctrines  very  absurd  ;  (John  vi.  52  ;)  but  the 
absurdity  was  their  own,  in  giving  a  literal  con- 
struction to  words  which  were  designed  to 
convey  a  spiritual  meaning.  And  if  we  would 
avoid  similar  mistakes,  it  is  necessary  that  we 
should  distinguish  the  spiritual  application  of 
his  words  from  the  figures  employed.  In  order 
that  we  may  clearly  understand,  and  rightly 
apply  to  ourselves  the  sacred  truths  left  upon 
record  by  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles,  it  is 
undoubtedly  requisite  that  we  should  partake  of 
a  portion  of  the  same  enlightening  spirit  by 
which  they  spoke.  When  we  attempt  to  inves- 
tigate the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  it  is  essential 
that  we  remember  that  the  religion  of  the  New 
Testament  is  a  spiritual  one,  designed  to  be  of 
universal  extent  and  permanent  duration.  Con- 
sequently, in  assigning  a  meaning  to  any  passa^ije 
of  doubtful  or  ambiguous  import,  we  ought 
always    to    regard   the    general   tenor  of  the 


HAPTISM.  19 

Christian  dispensation,  and  nev^er  adopt  a  con- 
struction derocratorv  thereto. 

Third.     It  is  observable  that  the  immediate 
disciples  of  our  Saviour  were  strongly  tmctured 
with  Jewish  prejudices,  and  many  of  the  early 
converts  to  Christianity  were  greatly  attached 
to  the  Jewish  customs.     So  far  was  the  apostle 
Peter  affected  by  the  narrow  prejudices  of  his 
nation,  that  a  special  revelation  was  afforded  to 
prepare  him   to  communicate  the   doctrine  of 
life  and  salvation  to  a  pious  Roman  centurion. 
And  when  he  heard  from  the  lips  of  Cornelius 
an  account  of  the  vision,  with  which  he  had 
been  favoured,  the  conclusion  to  which  he  was 
brought,  appears  from   his  expressions,  to  have 
been  new  to  him.     "  Of  a  truth  1  perceive  that 
God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every 
nation  he  that  feareth  him  and  worketh  right- 
eousness is  accepted  with  him."     (Acts  x.  34, 
35.)     That  he  did  not  discover  it  much  sooner 
can  scarcely  be  explained  in  any  other  way 
than  by   a  reference  to  these  prejudices  ;   for 
our  Lord  after  his  resurrection  commanded  his 
disciples  to    teach    or   proselyte    all    nations, 
(Matt,  xxviii.  19.)     And  Peter  himself,  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  announced  the  effusion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of 
Joel,  that  the  divine  spirit  should  be  poured  upon 
all  flesh.    (Acts  ii.  17.)    Yet  he  does  not  appear 
to  have  then  perceived  that  this  prediction  rela- 


20 


ESSAY  ON 


ted  to  any  people  but  his  own  nation.  And 
when  Peter  was  afterwards  censured  by  some 
of  his  fellow  believers  for  this  visit  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  he  in  vindication  of  himself  expounded 
the  matter  to  them ;  the  discovery  was  evi- 
dently new  to  them,  that  God  had  also  to  the 
Gentiles  granted  repentance  unto  life.  (Ibid.  xi. 
18.)  We  find  long  afterwards  that  there  were 
at  Jerusalem  many  thousand  Jewish  converts 
who  were  still  zealous  of  the  law.  Under  these 
circumstances,  we  may  readily  perceive,  that 
the  practice  of  those  Jewish  Christians,  apostles 
as  well  as  others,  could  scarcely  fail  of  retaining 
some  relicts  of  the  former  dispensation.  Con- 
sequenily  the  existence  of  a  practice  among 
Christians  of  that  day,  is  not,  of  itself,  an  evi- 
dence that  it  constitutes  a  necessary  part  of 
the  gospel  dispensation. 

I  now  proceed  to  examine  the  evidence  drawn, 
or  attempted  to  be  drawn,  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  support  of  the  hypothesis  thai  water 
baptism  is  a  part  of  the  Christian  dispensation  ; 
or  was  ever  introduced  into  it  by  divine  autho- 
rity. 

The  first  argument  in  favour  of  this  hypothe- 
sis is  drawn  from  the  circumstance,  related  by 
three  of  the  evangelists,  that  our  Saviour  himself 
submitted  to  this  baptism.  But  we  are  to 
remember  that  our  Lord,  in  his  personal  charac- 
ter, was  born  under  the  law,  and  became  subject 


BAPTISM.  21 

to  all  its  requisitions.  He  submitted  to  the 
Jewish  rite  of  circun>cision,  kept  the  Jewish 
feasts,  and,  as  far  as  appears,  conformed  to  all 
the  rituals  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Consequently 
his  submission  to  the  baptism  of  John,  no  more 
rendered  that  baptism  a  part  of  his  dispensation, 
than  his  observance  of  the  Jewish  law  rendered 
it  obligatory  on  Christians.  But  if  we  advert 
to  the  account  which  Matthew  has  left,  w^e  find 
the  tenor  of  the  narrative  opposed  to  the  hypo- 
thesis in  question.  "  Then  cometh  Jesus  from 
Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of 
him.  But  John  forbad  him,  saying,  I  have  need 
to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me? 
And  Jesus  answering  said,  sufler  it  to  be  so  noiu  ; 
for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness. 
Then  he  suffered  him."  (Chap.  iii.  13—15.) 
From  this  account  it  is  obvious  that  John  did 
not  consider  his  baptism  as  a  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian system,  and  that  our  Lord  submitted  to  it 
in  conformity  with  the  requisitions  of  the  cere- 
monial law.  For  as  the  apostle  to  the  Hebrews 
declares,  it  behoved  him  to  be  made  in  all  things 
like  unto  his  brethren.     (Chap.  ii.  17.) 

A  second  argument  in  support  of  water  bap- 
tism, has  been  deduced  from  our  Saviour's 
declaration  to  Nicodemus  :  "Except  a  man  be 
born  of  irnfer  and  uf  the  spiiit,  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God."    (John,  iii.  5.) 

As  baptism,  or  the  immersion  of  the  body  in 


22  ESSAY  ON 

water,  is  not  mentioned  in  this  passage,  the  sup- 
position that  this  was  what  our  Lord  intended 
by  being  born  of  water,  is  entirely  gratuitous. 
Certainly  no  one  will  soberly  affirm,  that  to 
be  dipped  or  sprinkled  with  water,  is  really  and 
truly  to  be  horn  of  water.  To  give  a  strictly 
literal  construction  to  these  expressions  is  im- 
possible. The  language  is  unquestionably  figu- 
rati  ve.  The  supposition  that  water  is  to  be  taken 
in  a  literal  sense,  and  that  baptism  with  water 
is  intended,  would  make  this  passage  prove  too 
much.  For  protestants  generally  admit  that 
baptism  with  water  is  not  absolutely  necessary 
to  salvation  ;  w^hich  this  passage  thus  construed 
would  prove  it  to  be.  That  this  relates  to  a 
spiritual  birth,  is  clear  from  what  immediately 
follows :  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  spirit  is 
spirit.  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  thou 
hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  cannot  tell  whence 
it  Cometh  and  whither  it  goeth.  So  is  every 
one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit." 

This  passage,  taken  in  its  figurative  sense, 
conveys  a  very  important  and  instructive  mean- 
ing. As  at  the  moment  of  birth  a  new  princi- 
ple of  vitality  is  introduced  into  the  animal 
system,  so  the  soul  that  is  truly  renovated  and 
made  alive,  unto  God,  becomes  actuated  by  a 
life  to  which,  in  its  natural  and  unregenerate 
sta'.e,  it  was  totally  a  stranger.  Thus  the  Apos- 


BAPTISM.  23 

tie  testifies,  I  am  crucified  with  Christ,  never- 
theless I  live ;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in 
me  ;  and  the  life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh, 
I  hve  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved 
me,  and  gave  himself  for  me.  (Gall.  ii.  20.) 
"  The  water  and  the  spirit"  says  Bishop  Tay- 
lor, "  in  this  place,  signify  the  same  thing;  and 
by  water  is  meant  the  effect  of  the  spirit  cleans- 
ing and  purifying  the  soul,  as  appears  in  the 
parable  of  Christ  baptising  with  the  spirit  and 
fire."* 

A  third  argument,  and  the  one  most  insisted 
on,  is  drawn  from  the  charge  given  by  our  Lord 
to  his  disciples,  immediately  before  his  ascen- 
sion. "  Go  ye  therefore  teach  all  nations,  baptis- 
ing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  1  have  com- 
manded you."  (Matt,  xxviii.  19.) 

In  this  charge,  no  mention  is  made  of  water ; 
unless  therefore,  water  is  necessarily  implied, 
this  passage  furnishes  no  propf  that  water  bap- 
tism is  a  part  of  the  Christian  system.  I  am 
aware  that  the  advocates  of  water  baptism 
insist,  that  baptising  in  water  is  meant  by  this 
injunction.  If  it  had  been  previously  demon- 
strated that  baptism  with  water  was  a  part  of 
the  Christian  dispensation,  we  might  fairly  con- 
clude that  our  Saviour  had  that  kind  of  baptism 

*Liberly  of  Prophesying,  p.  231. 


24  ESSAY  ON 

in  view.  But  as  that  point  has  not  been  estab- 
lished, it  is  not  correct  reasoning  to  assume  i: 
as  the  basis  of  an  important  conclusion.  In  fact 
those  who  deduce  from  this  passage,  the  con- 
chision  that  baptizing  in  water  is  a  part  of  the 
Christian  system,  actually  argue  in  a  circle ; 
though  probably  without  perceiving  it.  The 
argument  is  substantially  this  : — Baptizing  in 
water  is  a  Christian  ordinance,  because  our 
Saviour  commanded  his  disciples  to  baptize  all 
nations.  We  know  that  he  commanded  them 
to  baptize  with  water,  because  water  must  be 
understood  in  the  passage  before  us.  And  we 
know  that  water  must  be  understood,  because 
baptizing  with  water  is  a  part  of  the  Christian 
system.  Take  away  the  last  assumption,  and 
the  whole  argument  deduced  from  this  passage 
falls  to  the  ground. 

-  We  may  perhaps  be  assisted  in  arriving  at  a 
correct  conclusion  respecting  the  meaning  of 
this  injunction,  by  recurring  to  the  commands 
which  our  Lord  Jiad  previously  given  to  his 
disciples.  When  he  sent  the  twelve  to  preach 
to  the  people  of  Israel,  he  commanded  them  to 
heal  the  sick,  cleanse  the  lepers,  raise  the  dead, 
cast  out  devils,  (Matt.  x.  8.)  ;  but  nothing  is  said 
of  baptizing.  Neither  do  we  find  that  during 
his  personal  continuance  on  earth,  he  ever  com- 
manded any  of  those  whom  he  commissioned 
to  preach  the  gospel,  to  baptize  with  water.     It 


BAPTISM.  25 

is  true  that  the  disciples  baptized,  but  we  are 
informed  that  he  himself  did  not.  (John  iii.  22, 
Ibid.  iv.  2.)  We  may  hence  fairly  infer,  that 
the  disciples  baptized  in  imitation  of  John,  and 
not  in  consequence  of  any  command  from  him. 
For  the  expression  of  the  evangelist  is  scarcely 
reconcileable  with  the  supposition  that  the  act, 
thus  exclusively  attributed  to  the  disciples,  was 
done  in  compliance  with  his  commands.  Their 
ministry  before  his  ascension  seems  to  have  been 
very  similar  to  that  of  John.  A  compend  of 
John's  testimony  is  given  in  these  words, 
"  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand ;"  (Matt.  iii.  2,)  and  the  substance  of  what 
the  disciples  were  directed  to  proclaim  is  given 
in  almost  the  same  words.  (Ibid.  x.  7.)  It  was 
therefore  very  natural  for  them,  some  of  whom 
had  been  John's  disciples,  to  use  the  same  signi- 
ficant rite.  The  superiority  of  their  ministry  to 
that  of  the  forerunner,  is,  however,  sufficiently 
indicated  by  the  power  to  work  miracles,  which 
it  appears  John  did  not  possess.  (John  x.  41.) 
It  is  therefore  not  strange  that  his  commission 
should  include  an  external  observance,  w^hich 
they  were  not  commanded  to  use.  Inasmuch 
then  as  we  do  not  find  that  our  Saviour  had,  at 
any  previous  time,  commanded  his  disciples  to 
baptize  with  water,  the  supposition  that  water 
is  implied  in  the  charge  before  us  is,  at  best, 
gratuitous. 

3 


26 


ESSAY  ON 


Could  it  be  proved,  as  it  certainly  cannot, 
that  baptizing  with  water  was  intended  by  this 
injunction,  it  would  still  fail  to  establish  the 
doctrine  in  question.  As  the  baptism  upon  con- 
version was  a  Jewish  practice,  if  our  Lord  had 
required  his  apostles,  who  were  all  Jews,  to 
accompany  the  conversion  of  the  nations  to  the 
Christian  faith,  by  a  rite  similar  to  the  Jewish 
baptism  of  proselytes,  it  would  not  follow  that 
Christians  who  were  educated  in  that  religion, 
and  never  professed  or  held  any  other  faith, 
must  be  subjected  to  this  ceremony.  As  a  sign 
or  accompaniment  of  conversion  from  one  reli- 
gion to  another,  it  had  a  meaning  which  is  easily 
understood.  But  in  relation  to  those  who  have 
always  held  the  same  belief,  the  meaning  does 
not  apply;  and  as  administered  to  children, 
who  are  unconscious  of  any  profession  of  reli- 
gion, the  ceremony  appears  destitute  of  meaning. 

Other  considerations  however  will  show'  that 
water  was  not  implied. 

That  the  baptism  with  water  was  not  the 
baptism  of  Christ,  is  clearly  shown  by  various 
passages  in  the  New  Testament.  First,  by  the 
words  of  John,  already  cited.  "I  indeed  bap- 
tize you  with  water  unto  repentance,  but  he  that 
Cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  J,  whose  shoes 
I  am  not  w'orthy  to  bear,  he  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  \\i  h  fire, 
(Matthew  iii.   11.     Mark  i.  7.      Luke  iii.  16;) 


BAPTISM.  27 

and  by  the  declaration  of  our  Lord  himself, 
*'  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many 
days  hence,"  (Acts  i.  5),  and  by  several  others. 
The  disciples  were  not  required  immediately, 
upon  receiving  the  command  in  question,  to 
proceed  in  the  execution  of  their  mission,  but 
to  wait  at  Jerusalem  till  they  w^ere  endued  with 
power  from  on  high.  (Luke  xxiv.  49.)  And 
they  did  wait,  until  the  promise  of  the  Father, 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  poured  out  upon 
them.  This  was  the  baptism  before  spoken  of, 
under  the  qualifying  influence  of  which  they 
were  to  go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in,  or  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  That  they  did 
not  only  teach,  but  likewise,  through  the  power 
of  the  Father,  baptize  the  peqple  into  the  name, 
that  is,  into  the  spirit  and  power  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  is  evident  from  various 
instances.  Thus  when  Peter  was  preaching  to 
the  people  at  the  house  of  Cornelius,  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  them  which  heard  the  word. 
(Acts  X.  46.)  The  apostles  Peter  and  John  also 
prayed  for  the  belie vei's  at  Samaria,  and  laid 
their  hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the 
Holy  Ghost.  (Acts  viii.  17.)  The  Holy  Ghost 
was  also  given  to  the  disciples  at  Ephesus 
through  the  ministry  of  Paul.  (Ibid.  xix.  6.) 
Now   as  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 


28 


ESSAY  ON 


manifestly  the  peculiar  baptism  of  Christ,  when 
he  commanded  his  disciples  to  baptize,  without 
expressly  stating  what  kind  of  baptism  he  had 
in  view,  a  fair  and  necessary  conclusion  would 
be,  that  he  alluded  to  his  own,  particularly  as 
he  commanded  them  to  tarry  at  Jerusalem, 
until  they  were  themselves  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  before  they  should  attempt  to  teach 
and  baptize  the  people.  The  sentence,  go 
teach,  or  rather  proselyte  all  nations,  baptizing, 
&c.,  very  well  bears  the  construction,  that  these 
acts  were  to  be  simultaneous,  that  the  teaching 
was  to  be  with  baptizing  power,  and  such  the 
apostle  Paul  tells  us  his  teaching  was,  in  the 
demonstration  of  the  spirit  and  power.  (1  Cor. 
ii.  4.)  "  For  our  gospel  came  not  unto  you  in 
word  only,  but  also  in  power  and  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  in  much  assurance."     (Thes.  i.  5.) 

Such  was  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  himself, 
for  he  taught  them  as  one  having  authority, 
and  not  as  the  scribes.  (Matt.  vii.  29.)  And 
such  T  conceive  has  been  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  the  teaching  of  all  true  gospel  ministers 
from  that  day  to  this.  As  the  disciples  were 
to  teach,  not  the  doctrines  of  the  preceding  dis- 
pensation, but  those  of  the  Christian  religion ; 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  he  had  com- 
manded, so  the  baptism  which  was  to  attend 
their  ministry,  and  properly  constitute  a  part 
of  it,  was  unquestionably,  the  one  true  Christian 


BAi»Tis>r.  29 

baptism,  and  not  a  copy  or  an  imitation  of  the 
baptism  of  John. 

It  is   supposed  by  some,  and  the  practice  of 
many  of  the  professors  of  Christianity,  appears 
to  be   founded  upon  the  supposition,  that  the 
baptism  with  water,  was  directed,  in  the  passage 
before   us,   to   be  observed    in   the    Christian 
church,  not  as  a  continuation  of  John's  baptism, 
but  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  and  that  by  accompanying  the  adminis- 
tration of  this  ceremony,  with  these  words,  it 
ceased  to  belong  to  the  dispensation  of  John, 
but  became  a  part  of  the  dispensation  of  Christ. 
As  it  cannot  be   maintained,  and  indeed  is  not 
pretended,  that  the  apostles,  after  our  Lord's 
ascension,  performed  the  act  of  baptizing  with 
water,  in  any  other  way  than  John  did,  and 
they  had  previously  done,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
change,  if  any  was  made,  was  not  in  the  bap- 
tism itself,  but  in  the  w^ords  which  attended  it. 
The  baptism,  of  course,  as  far  as  the  water  was 
concerned,  was  still  the  baptism  of  John.     If 
then  the  disciples  baptized  their  converts  with 
water,  in  compliance  with  this   command,  it  is 
strange  that  nothing  appears  in  their  history  to 
show  that  they  accompanied  the  act  with  a 
declaration  that  it  was  done  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Certainly,  so  important  a  point  as  this  w^ould 
appear,  upon  this  view  of  the  subject,  would  not 
3* 


30  ESSAY  ON 

have  been  overlooked  by  the  apostles  or  their 
inspired  historian.  But  we  do  not  find  in  any 
part  of  the  apostohc  history,  that  they  ever  used 
this  form  of  expression.  They  are  said  simply 
to  have  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

If  we  construe  this  command  according  to 
the  tenor  and  spirituality  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, we  shall  adhere  more  closely  to  the  text, 
than  by  adopting  the  interpretation  usually 
given  to  it.  For  as  already  observed,  a  com- 
mand given  by  our  Lord  to  his  disciples,  to 
baptize,  must  imply,  if  not  otherwise  expressed, 
that  he  referred  to  his  own  baptism.  Had  any 
other  been  intended,  it  must  have  been  expres- 
sed. Besides  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
in  reality  baptizing  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  which  the  baptism  with 
water  is  not.  Observing  that  the  name  must 
be  taken  in  the  sense  wherein  it  is  frequently 
used  in  scripture,  viz.  for  the  spirit  and  power. 
(Vide  Ps.  XX.  5 ;  liv.  1  ;  Ixxxix.  24  ;  Prov.  xviii. 
10;  Cant.i.  3;  Isa.  lii.  6;  Acts  i v.  7  &  12,  x.  43.) 

The  apostle  testifies  that  as  many  as  were 
baptized  into  Ciirist,  had  put  on  Christ.  (Gal. 
iii.  27.)  To  be  baptized  into  Christ,  or  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  has 
therefore  a  much  deeper,  and  more  spiritual 
meaning,  than  being  baptized  with  ivatei',  what- 
ever form  of  words  may  accompany  its  admin- 
istration. 


BVPTIS>I.  31 

It  has  been  urged,  with  some  plausibiUty,  that 
baptizing  with  water  must  be  meant  by  this 
charge,  because  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  the  peculiar  office  of  Christ,  and  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  performed  by  man. 

This  argument  has  been  partly  anticipated 
and  answered  in  the  preceding  remarks.  It  is 
admitted  that  of  themselves,  and  by  any  power 
of  their  own,  they  could  not  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Our  Saviour  had  before  told  them 
that  without  him  they  could  do  nothing,  (John 
XV.  5)  ;  and  now,  as  if  in  anticipation  of  this 
very  objection,  he  assured  them  he  would  be 
wuth  them  to  the  end  of  the  world.  (Matt, 
xxviii.  20.)  When  he  previously  sent  the 
seventy  to  preach,  (Luke  x.  1),  and  commanded 
them  to  heal  the  sick,  a  command  was  given 
which  they  could  not  obey  by  any  power  of 
their  own.  Yet  when  they  returned  they  testi- 
fied that  even  the  devils  were  subject  to  them 
through  his  name.  (lb.  x.  17.)  And  the  apos- 
tles, after  his  ascension,  could  no  more  heal  the 
sick  or  perform  other  miracles,  by  their  own 
power,  than  they  could  baptize  with  the  Holy 
Spirit.  When  Peter  and  John  healed  the  lame 
man,  they  expressly  disclaimed  the  credit  of 
having  performed  this  miracle  by  their  own 
power  or  holiness,  (Acts  iii.  12),  but  testified 
that  it  was  by  the  name,  that  is  the  power  and 
spirit,  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  that  he  stood 


32  ESSAY  ON 

before  them  whole.  (lb.  iv.  10.)  We  find  the 
gift  of  liealing  was  not  at  their  command  ;  for 
.  although  Paul  healed  the  cripple  at  Lystra,  (lb. 
xiv.  10),  and  raised  the  father  of  PubUus  from 
his  bed  of  sickness  in  MeUta,  (lb.  xxviii.  8),  yet 
he  left  his  friend  Trophimus  sick  at  Miletum. 
(2  Tim.  iv.  20.)  He  also  speaks  of  Epaphro- 
ditus,  his  friend  and  companion  in  labour,  as 
having  been  sick  nigh  unto  death,  and  attributes 
his  recovery  to  the  divine  mercy  and  not  to  any 
power  of  healing  exercised  by  himself  or  others. 
(Phill.  ii.  27.)  When  divinely  authorised  and 
empowered,  they  could  heal  the  sick  or  baptize 
with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  of  themselves  they 
could  do  neither.  Hence  the  necessity  of 
waiting  till  they  were  endued  with  power  from 
on  high. 

A  fourth  argument  in  support  of  water  bap- 
tism, is  deduced  from  the  circumstance  of  Peter 
commanding  the  family  of  Cornelius  to  be  bap- 
tized, in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  after  they  had 
received  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  fact,  as  stated 
by  the  sacred  historian,  is  fully  admitted.  But 
giving  it  all  the  authority  it  can  reasonably 
claim,  it  proves  nothing  but  a  fact.  It  is  obvious 
that  Peter  was  then  deeply  tinctured  with  the 
prejudices  of  his  nation.  Until  that  time  the 
disciples  appear  to  have  thought,  that  the  Gen- 
tiles could  not  be  saved.  And  they  certainly 
did  not  understand,  that  the  Mosaic  law  was 


BAPTISM.  33 

not  necessary  to  be  observed  by  them.  If  it 
could  be  proved,  as  it  certainly  cannot,  that 
Peter  gave  this  command  under  an  apprehension 
that  baptism  with  water  was  to  be  a  standing 
ordinance  in  the  Christian  church,  it  would  be 
no  proof  of  the  correctness  of  the  opinion.  The 
ministry  of  Peter  until  that  time  had  manifestly 
been  confined  to  his  own  nation.  He  may  have 
laboured  under  this  relic  of  Judaism,  as  well  as 
under  others,  without  being  unfitted  for  the  ser- 
vice to  which  he  was  called.  We  find,  a  number 
of  years  after  this,  the  apostle  Paul  openly 
rebuking  him  for  compelling  the  Gentiles  to  live 
after  the  manner  of  the  Jews,  (Gal.  ii.  14;) 
which  shows  that  even  then,  with  all  his  addi- 
tional experience,  his  Jewish  predilections 
carried  him  further  than  the  enlarged  and  liberal 
mind  of  Paul  would  sufler  without  rebuke. 
Inasmuch  however  as  the  use  of  water  baptism 
was  then  common  among  these  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, it  is  very  probable  that  its  omission  would 
have  increased  the  prejudice  which  this  visit 
excited  among  Peter's  brethren  at  Jerusalem. 
He  therefore  may  be  considered  as  having  acted 
prudently  in  this  case,  without  our  drawing  any 
other  conclusion  from  it. 

It  may  further  be  observed,  that  some  mode 
of  admitting  converts  into  a  community,  either 
civil  or  religious,  must  necessarily  be  adopted, 
and  the  first  Christians  were  in  the  practice  of 


34  ESSAY  ON 

baptizing  their  converts  with  water,  as  the  Jews 
and  John  the  Baptist  had  done  before,  as  an 
indication  of  their  admission  into  the  community 
of  believers.  The  expression  of  Peter,  "  who 
can  forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be  bap- 
tized, which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
w^ell  as  we,"  may  therefore  be  fairly  construed 
as  implying,  that  these  people,  though  not 
belonging  to  the  Jewish  nation,  from  whom 
their  converts  had,  till  then,  been  obtained,  were 
proper  objects  of  admission  into  the  Christian 
church.  They  had  received  his  message,  and 
they  w^ere  crowned  with  the  gifts  of  the  spirit.. 
They  had  in  fact  become  Christians.  He  there- 
fore commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord.  In  other  words,  he  com- 
iTi landed  that  they  should  be  admitted  into  the 
community  of  believers  in  the  manner  and  with 
the  accompaniments,  then  frequently  used. 
This  however  brings  us  no  nearer  the  conclu- 
sion, for  the  establishment  of  which  the  passage 
is  usually  cited.  We  are  still  left  to  inquire  and 
to  decide  from  other  considerations,  whether 
this  practice  constitutes  a  necessary  appendage 
to  the  Christian  religion,  or  belongs  to  the 
exuvlcB  of  the  former  dispensation. 

The  account  of  Philip  baptising  the  eunuch 
of  Ethiopia,  (Acts  viii.  38,)  has  no  more  effi- 
ciency than  those  already  examined,  in  proving 
the  baptism  with  water  to  be  a  permanent  ordi- 


BAPTISM.  35 

nance  of  the  Christian  church.  The  interview 
of  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  was  effected  in  an 
extraordinary  manner,  manifestly  showing  its 
importance.  But  the  conversion  of  the  man  to 
the  Christian  faith  was  the  important  object 
gained  by  the  interview.  It  does  not  appear 
that  Philip  directed  him  to  be  baptized.  The 
proposal  was  made  by  the  eunuch  himself.  He 
had  been  at  Jerusalem  to  worship  and  was  read- 
ing the  prophet  Esaias.  Hence  it  is  manifest  he 
was  attached,  if  not  actually  a  proselyte  to  the 
Jewish  reUgion.  His  proposal  to  be  baptised, 
is  therefore  to  be  attributed  quite  as  much  to  his 
Jewish  predilections,  as  to  the  preaching  of 
Philip. 

From  the  preceding  observations,  I  think  it 
may  be  safely  inferred,  that  no  evidence  appears, 
either  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  or  in  the  arguments 
fairly  deduced  from  them,  that  water  baptism 
was  ever  introduced  by  divine  authority,  into 
the  Christian  system ;  and  of  consequence  the 
supposition  that  this  kind  of  baptism  is  a  stand- 
ing and  perpetual  ordinance  in  the  Christian 
church,  has  no  foundation  in  scripture  or  in 
correct  reason. 

It  is  freely  admitted  that  the  Apostles  after 
our  Lord's  ascension  did  sometimes  baptize 
their  converts  with  water,  but  it  is  not  admitted 
that  this  practice  arose  from  any  injunction  of 
our  Saviour,  either  when  he  gave  them  his  final 


36  ESSAY  ON 

instructions,  or  at  any  previous  time.  For  this 
opinion  we  have  two  unanswerable  reasons. 
No  such  injunction  appears  upon  the  records  of 
the  new  Testament ;  and  we  do  not  find  that 
the  disciples  ever  professed  to  baptise  with 
water,  in  obedience  to  his  commands.  In  regard 
to  preaching  the  gospel,  the  case  is  very  differ- 
ent. When  Peter  and  John  were  commanded 
not  to  speak  at  all,  or  teach  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  they  answered ;  "  Whether  it  is  right  in 
the  sight  of  God  to  hearken  unto  you,  more  than 
unto  God,  judge  ye.  For  we  cannot  but  speak 
the  things  which  we  have  seen  and  heard." 
(Acts  iv.  19,  20.)  Paul  also  testified  that 
necessity  was  laid  upon  him,  yea  woe  was  unto 
him,  if  he  preached  not  the  gospel.  (1  Cor. 
ix.  16.)  Under  the  circumstances  then  exifjting, 
the  conduct  of  the  apostles  in  relation  to  water 
baptism,  admits  of  an  easy  and  natural  expla- 
nation without  supposing  that  they  apprehended 
our  Saviour  had  ever  commanded  them  to 
use  it. 

The  ministry  of  the  apostles  began  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  was  for  a  time  confined  to  the 
Israelitish  nation.  Their  principal  mission  was 
therefore  not  to  draw  the  people  from  the 
observances  of  the  law,  in  which  they  were 
strongly  entrenched,  nor  from  the  ceremonies 
which  had  grown  out  of  it,  but  to  load  them  to 
Christ,  to  establish  an  unwavering  conviction  of 


BAPTISM.  37 

the  truths  of  the  gospel,  and  to  introduce  the 
righteousness  of  Christianity.  To  quaUfy  them 
for  this  work,  it  was  not  absolutely  necessary 
that  their  understandings  should,  at  first,  be  so 
far  enlightened  as  to  see  that  the  dispensation  of 
the  law  was  finished  by  the  coming  of  Christ. 
And  we  accordingly  find,  that  long  after  the 
doctrines  of  the  gospel  had  extended  beyond  the 
limits  of  Judea,  some  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
taught  the  brethren  at  Antioch,  that,  except 
they  were  circumcised  after  the  manner  of 
Moses,  they  could  not  be  saved.  And  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  after  much  disputation  with  them, 
found  this  so  grave  a  question,  that  it  was  deter- 
mined to  lay  the  subject  before  the  apostles  and 
elders  at  Jerusalem.  What  arguments  these 
teachers  employed  we  are  not  informed.  But 
it  is  easily  perceived  that  one  quite  as  plausible, 
in  support  of  this  doctrine,  might  be  derived 
from  our  Saviours  own  words,  as  any  that  have 
ever  been  adduced  in  defence  of  the  perpetua- 
tion of  water  baptism.  (Matthew  v.  17 — 19.) 
When  the  subject  came  under  consideration  at 
Jerusalem,  it  appears  this  doctrine,  which  ex- 
tended to  the  whole  Mosaic  law,  had  its  advo- 
cates there,  for  we  are  told  there  was  much 
disputing.  (Acts  xv.  7.)  The  conclusion  to 
which  the  assembly  at  length  came,  may  be 
justly  considered  as  breaking  the  yoke  of  the 
Mosaic  law,  for  the  first  time,  from  the  necks 
4 


38  ESSAY  ON 

of  the  disciples ;  yet,  even  in  this  conclusion, 
we  discern  the  relics  of  Jewish  predilections. 
The  injunction  to  abstain  from  things  strangled 
and  from  blood,  is  manifestly  founded  on  the 
precepts  of  Moses,  (Lev.  iii.  17;  vii.  26;  xvii. 
10,  12,  14.  Deut.  xii.  16—23;  xv.  23,)  and 
no  longer  considered  obligatory  upon  Chris- 
tians.* As  this  assembly  was  convened  to 
deliberate  upon  one  of  the  most  ancient  and 
revered  of  the  Jewish  observances,  and  to 
decide  whether  it  was  obligatory  upon  Chris- 
tians, it  furnished  a  favourable  opportunity  of 
expressing  the  opinion  of  the  apostles  and  elders, 
how  far  the  disciples  were  bound  to  adhere  to 
the  ceremonies  of  the  preceding  dispensations. 
They  accordingly  gave  a  united  judgment, 
sanctioned  by  the  concurrence  of  the  divine 
spirit.  But  in  the  judgment  thus  solemnly  pro- 
nounced, there  is  no  intimation  that  the  baptism 
of  their  converts  with  water,  was  to  be  conti- 
nued. Their  silence  on  this  subject  is  the  more 
remarkable,  as  this  would  seem  to  have  been 
the  time  to  express  it,  if  the  assembly  had  con- 
sidered the  baptism  w^ith  water  as  a  part  of  the 
Christian  system.  They  were  about  drawing 
a  line  between  the  requisitions  of  the  old  and 

*  It  has  been  supposed,  with  considerable  plausibility,  that 
the  injunction  to  abstain  from  things  strangled  and  frcm  blood, 
was  (;ivcn  to  avoid  offence  to  liie  Jews  dispersed  among  the 
Gentiles,  who  were  in  tlic  practice  of  reading  the  law  every 
Sabbath  day. — See  Milntr's  Church  History^  vol.  i.  25. 


BAPTISM.  39 

the  new  dispensation,  and  had  they  understood 
the  injunction  of  their  Lord,  expressed  in  the 
28ih  and  19th  of  Matthew,  to  signify  a  bap- 
tizing with  water,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  they 
could  have  failed  to  mention  it.  If,  however, 
they  understood  that  baptism  to  be  with  the 
spirit,  there  was  no  propriety  in  recurring  to  it 
in  this  place.  They  were  treating  of  outward 
observances,  and  not  of  the  gifts  and  graces  of 
the  spirit. 

It  is  also  a  remarkable  circumstance,  that  in 
the  epistles  which  the  apostles  addressed  to  the 
disciples  and  strangers  scattered  throughout  the 
world,  the  baptism  with  water  is  no  where 
enjoined.  This  omission  could  hardly  have 
occurred,  had  they  understood  it  to  be  a  per- 
petual ordinance  in  the  Christian  church. 
Although  the  apostles  did,  at  times,  baptize  their 
converts  with  water,  it  is  not  certain  that  the 
practice  was  ever  considered  by  them  as  essen- 
tial, or  that  it  was  uniformly  observed.  For  in 
the  sermon  which  Peter  preached  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  surprise  excited  by  healing  the 
cripple,  no  mention  is  made  of  baptizing  them ; 
yet  a  great  number  of  the  hearers  believed  in 
the  truth  of  his  doctrine.  (Acts  iv.  4.)  In  the 
great  conversion  at  Antioch,  where  the  disciples 
were  first  called  Christians,  and  where  Barnabas 
and  Saul  continued  their  labours  for  a  year,  we 
hear  nothing  of  baptism.     (lb.  xi.  26.) 


40  ESSAY  ON 

Among  the  extensive  labours  of  Paul  for  the 
conversion  of  the  Gentiles  v^^e  find  a  few,  and 
only  a  few  instances,  in  vs^hich  he  nnade  use  of 
water  baptism.  I  am  aware  that  the  advocates 
of  water  baptism  are  apt  to  presume,  that, 
where  the  scriptures  are  silent  upon  the  subject, 
this  baptism  was  used.  To  presume  a  fact,  of 
which  we  have  no  information,  and  to  make 
that  presumption  the  basis  of  an  important  con- 
clusion, is  not  correct  reasoning.  Presumptions, 
to  be  made  the  foundation  of  a  rational  conclu- 
sion, must  be  erected  on  strong  probabilities. 
This  baptism  having  been  proved  to  belong  to 
the  former  dispensations,  we  have  more  reason, 
when  the  sacred  historians  are  silent  on  the 
subject,  to  presume  that  water  was  not  used, 
than  to  suppose  that  it  was.  If  the  practice  of 
Ibaptizing  the  Gentile  converts  with  water  had 
ever  been  general  among  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians, and  especially  if  they  had  considered  it  as 
a  necessary  attendant  upon  conversion,  it 
appears  strange  that  we  should  not  find  the 
subject  more  frequently  mentioned  than  we  do. 

The  texts  and  arguments  hitherto  examined, 
show  that  the  hypothesis  which  makes  water 
baptism  a  perpetual  ordinance  in  the  church,  is 
not  founded  upon  scripture  authority ;  and  there- 
fore those  who  decline  its  use,  are  not,  on  that 
account,  chargeable  with  disrespect  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  holy  scriptures. 


BAPTISM.  41 

But  an  important  inquiry  remains.  Does  the 
New  Testament  prove  that  water  baptism  is 
not  a  part  of  the  dispensation  of  Christ?  I 
answer  in  the  affirmative.  The  scriptures  not 
only  fail  to  prove  that  it  is,  but  actually  show 
that  it  is  not,  a  part  of  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation. 

The  prophet  Ezekiel,  speaking  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  gives  us  a  very  forcible  description 
of  the  work  and  baptism  of  the  gospel.  "  Then 
will  I  sprinkle  clean  Avater  upon  you,  and  ye 
shall  be  clean  ;  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from 
all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart 
also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put 
within  you  ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony 
heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  \\\\\  give  you  an 
heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  spirit  within 
you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and 
ye  shall  keep  my  judgments  and  do  them." 
(Chap,  xxxvi.  25—27.) 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  our  Lord  de- 
scribes his  kingdom  as  a  spiritual  one.  For  he 
tells  us  the  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with 
observation,  neither  shall  they  say,  lo  here,  or,  lo 
there ;  for  behold  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within 
you.  (Luke  xvii.  20,  2L)  And  the  apostle 
testifies  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat 
and  drink,  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy 
in  the  Holy  Ghost.  (Rom.  xiv.  17.)  The  great 
object  of  Christ's  ministry  on  earth,  was  to  turn 
4* 


42  ESSAY  ON 

the  attention  of  the  people  from  outward  and 
visible  objects,  to  those  which  were  inward  and 
spiritual.  Hence  he  reproved  the  Pharisees  for 
observing  the  minutiae,  but  neglecting  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  law,  justice,  mercy  and 
faith.  (Matt,  xxiii.  23.)  He  admonished  to 
purity  of  heart,  to  seek  first  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  the  righteousness  thereof,  to  make 
clean  the  inside  of  the  cup — not  to  labour  for 
the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  for  that  meat 
which  endureth  unto  everlasting  life.  He  was 
accustomed  to  spiritualize  on  the  various  inci- 
dents that  occurred,  and  to  show  that  his  king- 
dom was  not  of  this  world,  nor  the  righteous- 
ness which  he  came  to  establish,  an  external 
and  ceremonial,  but  a  vital  and  permanent  one. 
And  the  apostle  Paul,  when  he  saw  that 
remarkable  vision  on  his  way  to  Damascus, 
was  instructed  that  he  was  to  be  sent  to  the 
Gentiles,  to  open  their  eyes,  to  turn  them  from 
darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan 
unto  God;  that  they  might  receive  forgiveness 
of  sins  and  inheritance  among  them  that  are 
sanctified  hy  faith  in  Christ,  (Acts  xxvi.  18.) 
It  is  therefore  obvious  that  an  outward  cere- 
mony which  cannot  reach  the  heart,  and  which 
has  no  necessary  connection  with  purity  of  life, 
would  be  an  anomaly  in  such  a  system  as  this 
was  designed  to  be. 

Secondly.     It  is  liardly  conceivable  that  our 


BAPTISM.  43 

Lord,  if  he  had  intended  that  his  disciples  in  all 
ages  should  submit  to  this  rite,  would  never 
have  administered  it  himself,  or  commanded 
others  to  administer  it,  in  such  terms  as  could 
not  have  been  misunderstood.     But  we  are  told 
that  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  (John  iv.  2  ;) 
and  when  he  called  his  disciples  to  follow  him, 
we  have  no  intimation  that  he  ever  required 
them  to  be  baptized.     If  any  of  them  had  been 
previously  baptized,  of  which  we  indeed  have 
no  account,  it  could  only  have  been  with  the 
baptism  of  John.     If,  therefore,  baptizing  with 
water,  in  his  name,  had  been  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian system,  it  must  have  been  administered  to 
them  all,  whether  they  had  been  subjected  to 
John's  baptism  or  not.     As  we  have  no  account 
that  those  whom  he  immediately  called  to  be 
his  witnesses,  ever  were  baptized  with  w^ater  in 
his  name,  or  that  he  at   any  time  commanded 
them  to  baptize  others  with  water,  it  must  be 
manifest  that  this  baptism  is  no  part  of  his  dis- 
pensation.    For  we   must  remember  that  the 
charge    mentioned    in    the   twenty-eighth    of 
Matthew,  has   been   proved   to   relate  to  the 
baptism  of  the  spirit,  and  not  to  that  of  water. 
The  expression, '  he  that  belie  veth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved,'  as  recorded  in  Mark,  evidently 
relates  to  the  same  transaction  as  that  of  Mat- 
thew, being  merely  an  abridgment  of  Matthew's 


44  ESSAY  ON 

relation,  and  consequently  alludes  to  the  same 
spiritual  baptism. 

Thirdly.  The  apostle  Paul,  who  was  particu- 
larly commissioned  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the 
Gentiles,  expressly  disavows  any  commission  to 
baptize  with  water.  Though  he  was  himself 
baptized,  (Acts  ix.  18,)  and  in  some  instances 
conformed  to  the  usages  of  the  preparatory 
dispensation  by  baptizing  others,  yet  when  he 
found  that  the  Corinthian  converts  w^ere  falling 
into  contention,  and  exalting  the  instruments  of 
their  conversion,  he  laboured  to  draw  their 
attention  from  outward  observances,  to  the 
unity  of  the  faith.  He  then  thanked  God  that 
he  had  baptized  but  few  of  them,  explicitly 
declaring  that  Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize,  but 
to  preach  the  gospel.  (1  Cor.  i.  17.)  As  Paul 
was  not  behind  the  chiefest  of  the  apostles,  but 
laboured  in  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles  more 
extensively  than  any  of  his  brethren,  (lb.  xv. 
10,)  and  had  no  commission  to  baptize  with 
water,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  water 
baptism  is  no  part  of  the  dispensation  which  he 
was  commissioned  to  proclaim.  If  further  evi- 
dence was  required,  we  have  it  in  the  passage 
before  us.  For  why  did  the  apostle  thank  God 
that  he  had  baptized  so  few  of  them  ?  lie  must 
have  perceived  that  in  doing  so,  he  had  not  only 
acted  without  divine  authority,  but  had  assumed 
an  office  which  he  had  better  decUned ;  that 


BAPTISM.  45 

this  baptism  was  to  the  Corinthians  not  merely 
useless,  but  actually  injurious.  It  had  been,  or 
at  least  was  liable  to  be,  made  the  occasion  of 
imputing  to  him  the  presumption  of  baptizing  in 
his  own  name.  (lb.  i.  15.)  When  the  apostles 
baptized  their  Jewish  converts  in  the  name  of 
Jesus,  the  application  of  an  old  and  familiar 
ceremony,  to  a  new  object,  was  a  mode  of 
leading  them  to  Christianity,  through  the  rituals 
of  the  law,  very  consonant  with  the  condescen- 
sion to  the  weakness  of  man,  every  where 
conspicuous  in  the  divine  dispensations.  But 
when  the  gospel  was  preached  to  the  Gentiles, 
who  had  not  been  accustomed  to  the  ceremonies 
of  the  Jewish  law,  the  enlightened  mind  of  the 
apostle  Paul  soon  perceived  that  the  baptism 
with  water,  instead  of  leading  them  to  Christ, 
had  a  tendency  to  direct  their  attention/ro?7ithe 
primary  object  of  Christian  faith.  He  therefore 
thanked  God  that  he  had  baptized  but  few  of 
them,  plainly  declaring  that  the  ministry  of  the 
gospel,  and  not  baptizing  with  water,  was  his 
proper  business.  This  declaration  also  proves 
most  conclusively,  that  baptizing  with  water  is 
neither  a  part  of,  nor  a  necessary  appendage  to, 
the  ministry  of  the  gospel. 

The  same  apostle  in  his  epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  admonishing  them  to  keep  the  unity  of 
the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,  subjoins,  in  a  few 
words,  a  general  summary  of  Christian  theology. 


46  ESSAY  ON 

"  There  is  one  body  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye 
are  called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling.  One 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and 
Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all, 
and  in  you  all."  (Eph.  iv.  4 — 6.)  The  serious 
Christian  will  not  need  to  be  informed  that  this 
one  essential  baptism  is  that  of  Christ,  the  bap- 
tism which  purifies  the  heart,  and  brings  those 
who  experience  it  into  the  unity  of  the  spirit, 
and  into  fellowship  with  the  Father  and  w^ith 
the  Son.  This  one  essential  baptism,  the  anti- 
type, of  which  the  washings  under  the  law,  and 
the  baptism  of  John,  were  expressive  figures,  is 
testified  of  by  the  apostle  Peter,  as  bringing 
salvation  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 
But  beside  informing  us  that  the  baptism  which 
saves  us,  is  the  antitype*  of  the  ark  which  saved 
the  whole  human  race,  then  consisting  of  but 
eight  persons,  from  the  waters  of  the  flood,  he 
adds,  as  if  apprehensive  that  his  meaning  might 
be  misunderstood,  and  the  baptism  of  water 
be  mistaken  for  that  to  which  he  refers,  "  not  the 
putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God."  (1 
Peter  iii.  21.)     This  declaration  is  remarkable 

*  Our  English  translation  of  this  passage  is  obscure  and 
defective.  The  words,  the  like  figure  ivhereunto,  oviL^ht  (o  be, 
the  antitype  wherrnf ;  for  the  Greek  etvTiTVTrov  sigriifies  an 
antitype,  not  a'  figure.  The  arguments  in  favour  of  water 
baptism,  however,  gain  notiiing  by  the  adoption  of  the  common 
translation. 


BAPTISM.  47 

for  its  fulness  and  force.  As  the  washings  pre- 
scribed by  Moses,  and  the  baptism  of  John  did 
put  away  the  fihh  of  the  flesh,  the  apostle 
infornns  us  negatively  that  this  is  not  the  true 
saving  baptism  of  the  Christian  religion.  But 
inasmuch  as  the  baptism  of  Christ,  with  his 
own  blessed  spirit,  rectifies  the  heart,  and 
cleanses  from  the  pollutions  of  sin,  and  thereby 
produces  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God,  he  tells  us  affirmatively,  that  this 
is  the  baptism  which  brings  life  and  salvation. 
Lastly.  In  all  those  places  of  the  New  Tes- 
ment  where  the  baptism  of  Christ  is  mentioned, 
we  find  no  intimation  of  that  weak  and  forlorn 
opinion,  which  some  moderns  have  advanced, 
that  the  baptism  of  water  and  that  of  the  spirit, 
make  up  the  baptism  of  Christ.  The  baptism 
with  water,  and  that  with  the  spirit,  are  no 
where  mentioned  together  except  by  way  of 
contrast,  or  as  type  and  antitype ;  the  one  as 
present  or  past,  the  other  as  yet  to  come ;  the 
one  as  preparatory  and  decreasing,  the  other  as 
increasing  and  permanent.  "  I  indeed  baptize 
you  with  water  unto  repentance,  but  he  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 
(Matt.  iii.  II.)  "I  indeed  have  bajUized you  with 
water,  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  (Mark  i.  8.)  "  Then  remembered  I 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John 
indeed   baptized   with  water,  but  ye   shall  be 


48  ESSAY  ON 

baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Acts  xi.  16.) 
"  That  he  should  be  made  manifest  to  Israel, 
therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with  water." 
(John  i.  31.  33.)  "  He  that  sent  me  to  baptize 
with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me,  upon  whom 
thou  shalt  see  the  spirit  descending  and  remain- 
ing upon  him,  the  same  is  he  which  baptizeth 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  I  am  not  the  Christ,  but 
am  sent  before  him.  He  must  increase,  but  I 
must  decrease."  (lb.  iii.  28.  30.)  Hence  it  is 
evident  that  these  baptisms  are^  spoken  of  as 
separate  and  distinct,  in  their  offices,  as  well  as 
their  nature.  The  author  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  speaks  of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms 
in  the  plural  number.  We  also  find  they  were 
not  dependent  upon  each  other  as  cause  and 
effect ;  for  we  read  that  great  multitudes, 
among  whom  were  many  of  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees,  came  to  John's  baptism,  of  whom 
we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  they  all,  or 
even  that  many  of  them,  ever  experienced  the 
baptism  of  the  spirit.  (Matt.  iii.  7.)  The  family 
of  Cornelius  were  baptized  with  the  spirit  before 
they  were  baptized  with  water.  (Acts  x.  44.) 
The  disciples  whom  Paul  found  at  Ephesus  had 
been  baptized  with  water,  and  yet  had  not  even 
heard  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  (lb.  xix.  2,  3.)  And 
Simon  Magus,  though  baptized  with  water, 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  baptized  with  the 
spirit  at  all,  (lb.  viii.  13,  20,  21 ;)  and  there  is 


BAPTISM.  49 

no  intimation  in  the  scriptures  that  the  baptism 
with  water  is  necessary  in  order  to  render  the 
baptism  of  the  spirit  complete  and  effectual;  or 
that  the  immersion  of  the  body  in  water  can 
purge  the  conscience  or  take  away  the  sins  of 
the  soul. 

If  we  reflect,  as  every  professor  of  Chris- 
tianity ought  seriously  to  do,  upon  the  nature 
and  design  of  the  Christian  religion,  upon  the 
transcendent  character  of  its  founder,  and  the 
purity  and  spirituality  of  his  dispensation,  we 
can  scarcely  fail  to  perceive,  that  to  load  it  with 
any  of  the  ceremonies  of  the  preceding  dispen- 
sations, is  to  cloud  its  lustre  and  tarnish  its 
beauty. 

The  transient  character  of  the  former  dispen- 
sations, and  the  permanence  of  that  which  our 
Lord  introduced,  are  beautifully  represented  in 
the  vision  which  three  of  the  disciples  saw  in 
the  holy  mount.  For  they  saw  Moses,  the 
minister  of  the  law,  and  Elias,  by  which  appel- 
lation John  the  Baptist  is  frequently  designated, 
talking  with  Jesus.  These  appeared  in  glory, 
and  spake  of  his  decease  which  he  should 
accomplish  at  Jerusalem.  (Matthew  xvii. 
1—5.  Mark  ix.  2—8.  Luke  ix.  28—36.) 
The  law^  of  Moses,  and  the  ministry  of  John, 
were  glorious  in  their  day,  and  pointed  to  Christ 
and  his  dispensation,  as  their  completion.  Peter 
was  desirous  of  remaining  where  they  tha 
5 


50  ESSAY  ON 

were,  and  proposed  to  make  three  tabernacles, 
one  for  their  jMaster,  one  for  Moses,  and  one  for 
EHas.  And  he  and  the  other  disciples  appear 
to  have  retained  a  corresponding  inclination  for 
some  time  after  our  Lord's  ascension.  They 
were  for  maintaining  the  law  and  the  baptism 
of  John,  along  with  the  religion  of  Christ.  They 
proposed  to  place  the  tabernacles  of  Moses  and 
Elias  by  the  side  of  his.  But  while  he  spake,  a 
bright  cloud  overshadowed  them,  and  a  voice 
came  out  of  the  cloud,  which  said,  "  this  is  my 
beloved  son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased ;  hear 
ye  him.^^  And  when  the  voice  was  past,  Jesus 
was  found  alone.  Moses  and  Elias  had 
passed  away,  but  the  Lamb  of  God,  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,  the  author 
and  minister  of  the  new  covenant,  remained  ; 
and  remained  alone. 

From  what  has  been  advanced,  I  consider 
the  position  to  be  fully  proved,  that  baptism  with 
water,  even  as  used  by  the  apostles,  is  not  a 
standing  ordinance  in  the  Christian  church,  and 
therefore  not  obligatory  on  Christians. 

It  has  sometimes  been  to  me  a  subject  of  sur- 
prise, that  those  Christian  professors  who  hold 
water  baptism  to  be  an  abiding  ordinance  of  the 
church,  do  not  more  generally  consider  them- 
selves bound  to  adhere,  with  greater  tenacity,  to 
the  authority  which  they  profess  to  follow.  If 
they  plead  the  example  of  the  primitive  Chris- 


BAPTISM.  51 

tians,  or  rather  of  those  among  them  who 
made  use  of  water  baptism,  as  obligatory  upon 
those  of  the  present  day,  it  would  seem  to  be  a 
necessary  conclusion  that  the  example  should  be 
strictly  and  literally  followed.  Now  we  may 
observe  that  the  word  /3«xr/|&>,  in  its  proper 
signification,  implies  to  dip  or  immerse,  and 
hence  baptism  properly  signifies  immersion. 
From  the  account  already  given  of  the  Jewish 
baptism,  and  that  of  John,  it  appears  that  their 
converts  were  immersed  in  water.  And  in  the 
narrations  of  the  baptisms  of  John  and  the  primi- 
tive Christians,  given  in  the  New  Testament, 
wherever  the  description  is  sufficiently  minute 
to  authorize  a  conclusion  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  they  were  performed,  we  find  they  went 
into  the  water.  In  the  beginning  of  Matthew, 
where  John's  baptism  is  first  mentioned,  we  read 
that  they  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan, 
(Chap.  iii.  6.)  And  when  Jesus  was  baptized, 
he  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  loater.  (lb. 
verse  16.)  Mark  relates  these  circumstances  in 
nearly  the  same  words.  (Chap.  i.  5,  10.)  When 
Philip  baptized  the  eunuch,  they  both  went  into 
the  water.  (Acts  viii.  38.)  John  was  baptizing 
in  Enon  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much 
water  there.  (John  iii.  23.)  In  these  cases, 
the  natural  and  necessary  conclusion  is,  that 
immersion  was  used.  Hence  it  is  obvious  that 
sprinkling  with  water,  the  practice  now  gene- 


52  ESSAY  ON 

rally  followed  by  those  who  profess  to  baptize, 
is  a  deviation  from  the  primitive  baptism,  and 
for  which  not  a  shadow  of  authority  can  be 
adduced  by  the  practice  of  the  Christian  church. 

I  am  aware  that  it  has  been  said,  that  (ixTrru, 
from  which  ^ocTrnlu  was  derived,  may  signify 
to  wash,  and  that  washing  can  be  performed 
by  affusion  as  well  as  immersion.  It  is  needless 
to  dispute,  in  this  case,  about  the  meaning  of 
these  Greek  verbs,  for  the  argument,  allowing 
its  utmost  force,  brings  us  no  nearer  the  con- 
clusion which  was  intended  to  be  draw^n  from  it. 

In  the  first  place,  it  does  not  appear  that  the 
primitive  Christians  ever  professed  to  baptize 
by  affusion.  Whether  the  word  baptize,  was 
ambiguous  or  not,  there  is  no  evidence  of  any 
diversity  among  them  in  regard  to  its  appli- 
cation. 

In  the  next  place,  if  we  will  have  baptize  to 
signify  to  wash,  let  it  be  so  applied.  When  the 
children  of  Israel  were  commanded  to  wash 
their  clothes,  the  command  was  to  be  literally 
obeyed.  A  few  drops  of  water  applied  to  them 
by  sprinkling  or  contact  would  not  have  con- 
stituted the  washing  required.  And  whether 
we  construe  baptism  to  signify  immersion  or 
washing,  as  sprinkling  is  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other,  it  cannot  signify  baptism.  As  far  as  I 
have  been  able'to  discover,  the  early  Christians, 
when  they  made  use  of  water  baptism,  retained 


BAPTISM.  53 

the  primitive  mode  of  immersion.  The  substi- 
tute now  generally  used  appears  to  have  been 
introduced  in  the  third  century. 

From   the  writings   of  the  Christian  fathers 
which  have  reached  us,  it  is  manifest  that  many 
superstitious  opinions  by  that  time  were  admit- 
ted among  them.     As  the  Yife  and  power  of 
Christianity  declined,  and  the  baptism  of  the 
spirit  was  but  httle  known,  a  high  degree  of 
importance  was    attached  to    the   baptism  of 
water.     The  effects  of  the  real  Christian  bap- 
tism, as  described  in  the  works  of  the  apostles, 
came  to  be  attributed  to  the  external  ceremony. 
Through  baptismal  water,  says  Ambrose,  men 
pass   from   earth   to   heaven.     Whence,   says 
Augustin,  hath  water  so  much  virtue,  as  that  it 
touches  the  body,  and  washes  the  heart?     As 
water,  says  Algerius,  extinguisheth,  cleanseth 
and  whiteneth  above  other  liquors ;  so  in  bap- 
tismal water,  fleshly  lusts  are  quenched,  sin,  both 
original  and   actual,  washed  away,  and  inno- 
cency   begotten.      The   Council   of    Florence 
taught,  that  by  baptism  we  are  spiritually  born 
again  ;  and  that  it  imprints  in  the  soul  a  charac- 
ter, that  is  some  spiritual  sign  indelible,  which 
cannot  be  blotted   out.     And   further  that  we 
are  thereby  made  members  of  Christ,  of  the 
body  of  the  church. 

The  Council  of  Trent  taught,  that  by  bap- 
5* 


54  ESSAY  ON 

tism   we  put   on    Christ,  and  are   thoroughly 
made  new  creatures.* 

Hence  we  perceive,  that  in  the  early  ages  of 
Christianity,  and,  through  succeeding  periods,  to 
modern  times,  a  degree  of  importance  was 
attached  to  the  baptism  of  water  which  belongs 
only  to  the  baptism  of  Christ,  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Out  of  these  opinions  naturally 
grew  another,  viz.  that  inasmuch  as  a  relapsed 
Christian  was  in  a  worse  condition  than  an 
infidel,  it  was  best  to  defer  the  purifying  opera- 
tion of  baptism  until  near  the  close  of  life. 
Hence  it  was  often  delayed  till  sickness  or  age 
gave  clear  indications  of  approaching  dissolu- 
tion. To  persons  thus  situated,  the  usual  mode 
of  baptizing  by  immersion,  was  evidently  diffi- 
cult and  dangerous.  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Car- 
thage, being  asked  what  was  to  be  done  in 
such  cases,  answered,  that  seeing  they  could 
not  do  it  as  they  ought,  without  endangering 
the  life  of  the  patient,  they  must  do  it  as  well  as 
they  could.  They  might  therefore  apply  the 
element  of  water,  by  sprinkling  it  upon  them  in 
their  beds  ;  alleging  Ezekiel  xxxvi.  25,  "  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you ;"  observing, 
rather  philosophically,  that  the  virtue  of  baptism 
ought  not  to  be  estimated,  in  a  carnal  manner, 
by  the  quantity  of  external  apparatus ;  yet  in 

*  Lawson  on  Baptism,  p.  73. 


BAPTISM.  55 

case  the  patients  were  afterwards  restored,  he 
advised  that  they  should  be  dipped  in  a  river.* 
This,  we  observe,  was  about  the  middle  of  the 
third  century.  Musculus  observes,  that,  an- 
ciently, very  many  deferred  their  baptism  to  the 
utmost  term  of  life,  to  the  end  they  might  depart 
pure  and  blameless  out  of  the  world ;  and  so 
they  did  not  suffer  themselves  to  be  baptized, 
except  in  their  beds,  and  that  by  sprinkling 
only,  in  the  very  point  of  death,  that  they  might 
die  with  an  evidence.  In  this  manner  Constan- 
tine,  the  son  of  Helena,  a  zealous  professor,  was 
baptized  when  he  was  sixty-live  years  old,  being 
then  sick,  and  died  a  few  days  afterwards. 
Basil,  bishop  of  Cesarea,  though  born  of  believ- 
ing parents,  his  father  being  a  bishop,  was  not 
baptized  till  he  was  aged. 

As  the  practice  of  sprinkling  instead  of  im- 
mersion, was  first  used  in  condescension  to  the 
sick  and  weak,  this  application  of  water  was, 
for  a  time,  considered  as  an  imperfeet  baptism, 
so  that  those  who  had  been  sprinkled  and  not 
dipped,  were  not  admitted  into  any  ofRce  in  the 
church.f  But  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity 
baptism  w^as  not  applied  to  any  but  those  who 
were  supposed  to  be  sufficiently  instructed  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  Consequently  the 
baptism  of  infants   was  not  then  used.     The 

*  Ibid.  75.     t  Barclay's  Apology,  440. 


56  EssAr  on 

earliest  account  on  record,  as  far  as  I  can  dis- 
cover, of  infant  baptism,  is  about  the  middle  of 
the  third  century.    A  council  was  held  in  Africa, 
by  sixty-six  bishops,  with  Cyprian  at  their  head, 
in  the  year  253,  in  which  the  question  of  the 
time  when  baptism  ought  to  be  administered 
was  discussed.     It  appears  that  an  opinion  was 
advanced  by  some  Christian  professors,  that  as 
the  Jews  were  required  to    circumcise    their 
children  on  the  eighth  day  after  birth,  the  chil- 
dren of  Christian  parents  ought  to  be  baptized 
at  the  same  age.     And  one  subject  of  examina- 
tion with  this  council  was,  whether  the  eighth 
day,  or  an  earlier   one,  ought  to   be  adopted. 
Fidus,  an  African  bishop,  appears  to  have  advo- 
cated the  Jewish  age ;  Cyprian  informed  him 
that  the   council  were  of  a  different   opinion. 
And  the  reason  of  that  opinion,  plainly  indicates 
the   ground   of  the  practice    itself.     "  We   all 
judged  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  should 
be  denied  to  none.     For  if  the  Lord  says  in  his 
gospel,  the  Son  of  Man  is  not  come  to  destroy 
men's  lives,  but  to  save  them,  how  ought  we  to 
do  our  utmost,  as  far  as  in  us  lies,  that  no  soul 
he  lost.     Spiritual  circumcision  ought  not  to  be 
impeded  by  carnal  circumcision.     If  even  to 
the   foulest  offenders,    when   they    afterwards 
believe,  remission  of  sins  is  granted,  and  none 
is   prohibited   from    baptism  and  grace,   how 
much  more  should  an  infant  be  admitted,  who 


baptism:.  57 

just  born  hath  not  sinned  in  any  respect,  except 
that  being  carnally  produced,  according  to 
Adam,  he  hath,  in  this  first  birth,  contracted  the 
contagion  of  the  ancient  deadly  nature ;  and 
who  obtains  the  remission  of  sins  with  the  less 
difficulty,  because  not  his  own  actual  guilt,  but 
that  of  another,  is  to  be  remitted.* 

In  this  decision  we  may  perceive  two  doctri- 
nal points  clearly  admitted ;  on  which  indeed 
the  decision  itself  was  evidently  founded.  That 
children  from  their  birth  are  sinners  in  conse- 
quence of  the  transgression  of  our  first  parents ; 
and  that  sins  are  remitted  by  the  baptism  of 
water.  When  the  bishops  had  embraced  these 
opinions,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  they  should 
advise  the  early  baptism  of  infants. 

This  doctrine  of  original  sin,  came  afterwards 
to  hold  a  conspicuous  place  among  the  opinions 
of  Christian  professors.  Augustine,  who  lived 
in  the  fifth  century,  gave  his  judgment  that 
infants,  dying  without  being  baptized,  were  lost, 
because  they  were  guilty  of  original  sin.f  The 
Milevitan  Council  held  in  402,  adopted  the  fol- 
lowing canon:  "It  is  our  will,  that  all  who 
affirm  that  young  children  have  everlasting  life, 
who  are  not  baptized  to  the  taking  away  of 
original  sin,  that  they  be  anathematized."  And 
the  fifth  Carthagenian  Council,  held  416,  adopted 

*  Milner's  Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  320.    t  Lawson,  84. 


58  ESSAY  ON 

the  subsequent:  "We  will,  that  whosoever  de- 
nieth  that  little  children  by  baptism  are  freed 
from  perdition,  and  eternally  saved,  that  they 
be  accursed."* 

Hence  we  perceive  that  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism  owed  its  extension  and  permanence,  if 
not  its  origin,  to  the  opinion,  that  children  are, 
from  their  birth,  deemed  offenders  in  the  sight 
of  a  just  and  merciful  Creator,  in  consequence 
of  the  transgression  of  our  first  parents.f 

This  doctrine  of  original  sin  being  once 
embraced,  and  the  efficacy  of  water  baptism  to 
purge  away  sins,  both  original  and  actual,  being 
also  admitted,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  the 
expedient  of  Cyprian  would  be  frequently 
adopted,  particularly  in  regard  to  infants  and 
persons  labouring  under  disease. 

Rantism,  or  sprinkling,  thus  gradually  super- 
ceded the  ancient  baptism.  To  such  supersti- 
tious extent  was  the  importance  of  infant  baptism 
carried,  that  children  were  sometimes  taken  out 
of  their  graves,  and  sprinkled  with  water  ;  others 
were  baptized    by  proxy,  in  imitation  of  the 

*  T.  Story,  609,  from  D'Anvcrs,  p.  105. 

t  It  is  no  part  of  my  object  in  this  essay  to  examine  how 
far  or  in  vviiat  manner  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  affected  by 
his  transgression.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  present  purpose  to 
observe,  that  I  most  unequivocally  assent  to  the  aposiolic  de- 
claration, that  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law;  and 
that  consequently  infants  are  not  guilty  in  the  sight  of  God, 
until  they  Jiave  actually  transgressed  his  law. 


BAPTISM.  59 

ancient  baptism  for  the  dead.  This  baptism  for 
the  dead  was  effected  in  the  following  manner. 
A  person  placed  himself  under  the  bed  of  the 
deceased  ;  and  upon  the  question  being  put  to 
the  dead,  whether  he  would  be  baptized,  the  one 
under  the  bed  gave  answer  in  the  affirmative. 
He  then  was  baptized  in  place  of  the  deceased. 
A  procedure,  as  Godwin  justly  observes,  fitly 
compared  to  acting  on  the  stage,* 

Although  the  practice  of  being  baptized  or 
sprinkled  by  proxy,  is  probably  now  unknown, 
yet  we  have  another  which  closely  resembles 
it.  When  infants  are  sprinkled,  or  christened, 
as  it  is  usually  termed,  and  parents  or  others 
act  as  god-fathers  or  god-mothers,  and  enter 
into  engagements  on  their  behalf,  such  as  they 
could  not,  without  divine  assistance,  possibly 
perform,  if  made  for  themselves,  they  are 
attempting  to  perform  by  proxy  the  most  mo- 
mentous part  of  the  proceeding. 

From  this  brief  notice  of  the  history  of 
Rantism,  it  is,  I  think,  sufficiently  obvious  that 
the  practice  now  generally  prevalent  among  the 
professors,  of  Christianity,  is  one  which  has 
arisen  since  the  apostolic  age,  and  was  totally 
unknown  when  the  New  Testament  was  writ- 
ten. Hence  those  who  urge  the  precepts  or 
practice  of  our  Lord  or  his  apostles,  in  support 

*  Lawson,  102.     Phipps,  16. 


60  ESSAY  ON 

of  water  baptism,  and  yet  use  the  substitute 
which  Cyprian  introduced,  are  actually  plead- 
ing for  one  thing  and  practising  another.  If 
the  continuance  of  water  baptism,  as  an  ordi- 
nance of  the  Christian  church,  could  be  main- 
tained from  scripture  authority,  it  would 
necessarily  follow  that  Christians  in  general 
were  in  the  neglect  of  an  ordinance  of  Christ. 
For  we  need  not  spend  much  time  in  the  inquiry 
whether  the  arguments,  such  as  they  are,  in 
favour  of  water  baptism,  professedly  deduced 
from  the  precepts  or  practice  of  our  Lord  and 
his  apostles,  are  applicable  to  the  baptism  then 
known  and  used,  or  to  one  introduced  more  than 
two  centuries  after  our  Saviour's  crucifixion. 
At  the  present  time  I  believe  a  small  minority 
of  those  who  profess  the  Christian  name,  practice 
the  real  ancient  baptism  in  water. 

It  is  also  observable,  that  the  apostolic  prac- 
tice, as  far  as  we  can  discover  from  their  history, 
bore  a  striking  resemblance  to  that  of  the  Jews. 
They  baptized  their  converts;  theirs  was  a 
baptism  of  conversion.  The  modern  substitute 
is  not  only  a  deviation  in  manner,  sprinkling 
instead  of  immersion,  but  a  total  change  in 
regard  to  the  subjects  of  it.  Infants,  not  adults, 
are  now  most  commonly  subjected  to  this 
process. 

To  those  who  believe  that  no  obligation  rests 
upon  us  to  use  water  in  any  of  its  modes  of 


BAPTISM.  61 

application,  it  must  be  of  little  importance  what 
method  approximates  most  nearly  to  the  primi- 
tive practice.  But  we  may  deduce  a  conclusion 
from  the  facts  just  stated,  which  to  those  who 
are  governed  by  authority,  may  appear  neither 
trivial  nor  unimportant.  We  have  the  autho- 
rity of  nearly  all  the  Christian  world,  for 
declining  the  use  of  water  baptism.  For  if 
Christians  of  the  present  day  judge  themselves 
at  liberty  to  discontinue  the  use  of  the  only 
species  of  water  baptism  known  or  practiced 
during  the  apostolic  age,  and  to  adopt  a  sub- 
stitute of  human  invention,  the  precepts  and 
practice  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  are  thrown 
out  of  the  question.  The  point  at  issue  between 
us  and  the  professors  of  Christianity  in  genera], 
is  not  whether  we  are  required  to  use  the  bap- 
tism of  the  apostolic  age,  for  on  that  point  we 
appear  to  be  generally  agreed,  but  whether  the 
Rantism  of  Cyprian  and  the  Roman  church 
constitutes  a  necessary  part  of  the  Christian 
religion. 

The  question  is  not  therefore  a  scriptural  one, 
but  one  of  tradition  and  the  authority  of  the 
middle  ages.  And  surely  those  Christians  who 
consider  the  scriptures  as  the  primary  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  will  hardly  unchristianize  a 
society  for  rejecting  the  authority  of  the  popes 
and  councils  of  the  middle  ages. 

It  is  obvious,  that  under  the   dispensations 
6 


62  ESSAY  ON 

which  preceded  ihe  advent  of  the  Messiah,  the 
visible  worship  was  attended  with  numerous 
ceremonies,  which  gave  it  a  character  more 
marked  with  outward  action  than  with  any 
operation  of  the  mind.  The  observance  of  these 
ceremonies  was  strictly  enjoined,  and  their 
number  and  ord^r,  under  the  Mosaic  law, 
minutely  described.  But  our  Saviour  taught 
the  necessity  and  importance  of  a  more  spiritual 
worship.  This  is  particularly  illustrated  in  his 
conversation  with  the  woman  at  Jacob's  well. 
When  she  wished  to  be  informed  whether  Jeru- 
salem, where  the  Jewish  temple  was  erected,  or 
Mount  Gerizim,  where  the  Samaritans  had 
erected  a  rival  temple,  was  the  place  where 
men  ought  to  worship,  he  plainly  told  her,  that 
long  contested  point  was  no  longer  a  subject  of 
importance.  "  Woman,  believe  me,  the  hour 
cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  true  worshippers 
shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth; 
for  the  Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  him. 
God  is  a  spirit,  and  they  that  worship  him, 
must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  (John 
iv.  20—24.) 

In  the  instructive  discourse  which  he  had 
with  his  disciples,  a  short  time  before  his  cruci- 
fixion, he  clearly  and  forcibly  inculcated  the 
spiritual  nature  of  the  communion  which  was 
to  exist  between  him  and  them ;  showing  con- 
clusively that  his  religion  was  not  a  system  of 


BAPTISM.  63 

outward  observances,  but  of  an  inward  and 
spiritual  life.  The  great  object,  indeed,  of  the 
ministry  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  was  to 
establish  a  spiritual  religion;  a  spiritual  wor- 
ship; a  spiritual  baptism.  Our  Lord  himself  is 
the  door  through  which  alone  entrance  is  ob- 
tained into  the  fold  of  everlasting  rest.  (Ibid, 
chap.  xiv.  and  xv.) 

The  one  true  Christian  baptism  is  that  of  the 
spirit,  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost.  To  be  really  and  truly 
baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ,  is  to  be  brought 
into  fellowship  with  the  Father,  and  with  the 
Son.  For  as  many  as  are  baptized  into  Christ 
have  put  on  Christ;  and  to  put  on  Christ  is  to 
be  governed  by  his  spirit  and  conformed  to  his 
life.  This  is  the  baptism  which  purifies  the 
heart,  not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God,  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 
He  therefore  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved. 


JOSEPH  ANn  VVIUJAM  KFTE,  PUINTKllS. 


